XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: mightymartianca@hotmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:52:28 +0000 (UTC),   
   Raan  wrote:   
   >   
   > "Atman"  wrote in message   
   > news:9ht9j0dc6j99vm68iq8i7ifl99cqmu9fe2@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:52:31 +0000 (UTC), "Raan"    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >So to reason and apply that reason by means of the self correcting   
   > objective   
   >> >methods of science is to have as dogmatic a faith as any religion is that   
   >> >right.  And I suppose mathematics as it is applied to engineering is just   
   > an   
   >> >occult magical system.  You might want to reassess your view.   
   >>   
   >> Nope!  Many of the belief systems, religious or otherwise, that are   
   >> being denounced by Secular Humanism also claim to have scientific   
   >> support or even scientific proof on their side.  All to often people   
   >> ignore data that does not fit there view point.  This includes those   
   >> who support Secular Humanism.  The observer is effecting that which is   
   >> being observed.  The interpretation of scientific data is very   
   >> subjective.   
   >>   
   >> Secular Humanism has received a bad name due to actions taken by   
   >> Communist states under the banner of state sponsored Secular Humanism.   
   >> Much like many religions receive a bad name due to the actions of   
   >> extreme fundamentalists in their groups.  The Communist state replaced   
   >> God and all to often the state then decides that it's OK to execute,   
   >> imprison,  torture,  or re-educate all people who express any   
   >> religious or spiritual beliefs.  Hundreds of millions died in Russia,   
   >> China, Vietnam, and other Communists countries.   
   >>   
   >> Bottom line is that all dogma, fanaticism, fundamentalism, and   
   >> extremism can be dangerous, even under the name of Secular Humanism.   
   >>   
   >>  Agreeing to respect other people's right to hold and publicly express   
   >> their beliefs, even those religious beliefs that you disagree with,   
   >> has proved to be the only workable solution.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And is universal tolerance tolerant of intolerance?   
      
   Not all religious people are intolerant.   
      
   > Beliefs are ignorance posing as knowledge.   
      
   If you can't falsify a belief, then I'd say, while I wouldn't agree with   
   that belief, I could hardly claim it as ignorance.   
      
   > The limitations of reason and science do not negate them.   
      
   Don't try to use science to justify your position.   
      
   > Many think themselves reasonable that are not.   
      
   What does that have to do with tolerance?   
      
   > And many label themselves other than what they are.   
      
   So what?   
      
   > My disagreement is with belief itself and none in particular.   
      
   Yes, I know.  You're a fundementalist.   
      
   > These sentences may be out of order but there you have it.   
      
   I think it describes the fundementalist mentality in a nutshell.  :My way or   
   the highway", isn't that what it is?   
      
   --   
   Aaron Clausen   
   mightymartianca@hotmail.com   
      
   WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?   
   NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing   
          milkbone underwear.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)